Tuesday, 30 September 2014

The post liberalization Indian economic
boom continues to create a voracious appetite for space to meet the demands of
industrialization, infrastructure building, urban expansion and resource
extraction. The emerging modern market completely depends on land
resources, but Asian countries like India and China are facing a scarcity of
land, specifically non-agricultural land. Indeed, land acquisition has become a
most vexing problem for policymakers in India. Names like Singur, Nandigram,
Kalinganagar, Jaitapur, and Bhatta Parsaul have entered the human lexicon as
poignant metaphors of social conflict. The Left Front, which built a remarkable
political hegemony in West Bengal largely on the basis of Operation Barga and
land reforms, has been brought to its knees after a botched attempt at wresting
a thousand acres for a car factory, illustrating how land issues have seismic
potential in our political landscape. For those whose lands were acquired and
people whose livelihoods depended on the lands acquired, a great human tragedy
has unfolded. Independent estimates place the number of people displaced
following development projects in India since independence at 60 million. Only
a third of these people were resettled in a planned manner.

In this context, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 offers a genuine
protection and expansion of the rights and interests of the poor and vulnerable
- as seen in its decentralized, participatory and time-bound approach, its
emphasis on a just and informed and transparent process, inclusion of hitherto
ignored aspects like rehabilitation and resettlement, comprehensive
compensation package, ensuring improvement in standards of living of the all
affected. In view of the recent criticisms from the right wing, several other
political parties and the industrial lobby, there is need to protect the said
Act from any amendments that would fundamentally alter its democratic
principles and its ideal of social justice. At the heart of the matter, the question
is not that of higher GDP on the back of the neoliberal political agenda but
rather how can broad based development be achieved, keeping in mind the reality
that growth effects are diffused through a political-economy of difference –
that of class, caste, region etc.

It has been suggested that the consent
clause of the 2013 Act has virtually halted the process of land acquisition,
that the Act violates federal provisions of the Indian constitution and the
process of acquisition outlined, including the social impact assessment (SIA)
exercise, is too cumbersome and impractical. Is there any merit in these
criticisms?

The Act requires consent of 80% of all
land losers in case of acquisition by private companies and 70% in case of
PPPs. This provision has been severely criticised for making land
acquisition virtually impossible, for dissuading private investment and
industrial development and consequently being anti-growth, anti-jobs and
therefore anti-people. What is not being voiced enough is that these provisions
have been introduced in light of the experience of the previous colonial
legislation which gave draconian powers to the state without any safeguards
against the abuse of this power or against acquisition.

Criticisms against the Act for being
against the federal spirit do not hold ground. It should be noted that though
land is a state subject, land acquisition is mentioned in the concurrent list.
The new Act is explicit on active state participation in the process of
acquisition. Furthermore, crucial decision-making powers pertaining to whether
land should be acquired, purchased or leased; the extent to which multi-cropped
irrigated land can be acquired; ensuring rehabilitation and resettlement;
determination of compensation etc vest with the states. Clearly then, all
efforts have been made to protect the federal principle.

The importance of SIA and public
hearings is unquestionable. It allows for a dialogue amongst stake-holders, to
establish who will be affected (individual or community), what will be consequences
of acquisition for them, what is it that the affected want and moreover, SIA
encourages participation, sharing of information, transparency and
accountability. This mechanism is now being critiqued as a complex and
time-consuming administrative hassle for it involves an initial socio-economic
profiling of the area, multiple hearings at different levels, allows time for
information dissemination at various stages of the acquisition process etc.
However, it should be highlighted here that the SIA exercise is time bound and
the Act states that it has to be completed within six months. Removing or
diluting this clause goes against the very grain of a just polity.

There are various other clauses
regarding which changes have been sought. For example, one observation is that
penalty provisions against civil servants in case of any misconduct are too
severe. It should be remembered though that assigning responsibility for one’s
acts and holding them liable to them should not be considered as a negative
feature, particularly given the way things work in this country. The
comprehensive compensation package is seen as impractical, unsustainable and as
substantially increasing the cost of land acquisition and making projects
unviable. But for the first time, the interests and rights of the most
vulnerable and marginalized sections of the Indian society have been protected
and expanded. In India, land is not just a factor of production, a source of
monetary income and employment; it is much more, land is an identity, and is an
emotional and a social asset, the value of which cannot be gauged or is very
difficult to be estimated only within economic and livelihood frames.

The
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 was drafted and subjected to extensive public debate
before being enacted. Now changes are being proposed to it without any
substantive basis, without public discussion and dialogue amongst the
stakeholders. The Act is pro-poor, pro-tribals and pro-farmers; and is seen as
an important mechanism to counter Naxalism. In fact, this legislation provides
an opportunity for wider reforms, for instance, digitisation of land records,
in the arena of registry etc. It has been in operation for too short a duration
to judge its performance and any unilateral top-down changes may well spark
violence – the very anti-thesis of the new Act’s objective. A briefing was
organised by RGICS on 7th August 2014 to discuss the proposed amendment to this Act. The
representatives of the farmer organisations such as Delhi Grameen Samaj,
Bharatiya Kisan Union and Ekta Parishad have expressed their concerns to the
over ten Members of Parliament. Shri. Jairam Ramesh, who was the main architect
of this Act has an extensive discussion with the representatives. The Members
of Parliament and farmer groups came to a consensus that a continuous
nation-wide awareness campaign to mobilise support against the amendments is
need of the hour to protect such well-crafted pro-poor revised Act, which came
into existence after more than a century by replacing the colonial
pro-corporate Act of 1897.